About Me

This site is the inspiration of a former reporter/photographer for one of New England's largest daily newspapers and for various magazines. The intent is to direct readers to interesting political articles, and we urge you to visit the source sites. Any comments may be noted on site or directed to KarisChaf at gmail.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

In the world of philosophy, there are two prime schools of thought about action and consequence.

One,
laid out in detail by Immanuel Kant, is deontology, a theory in which
the goodness of an act is judged solely by adherence to a rule or set of
rules. There are universal duties and obligations, and it is the motive
of the actor that matters.

In the second, teleology, determining
whether an act is morally right or wrong depends solely on the results
of said act (good results, good act; bad results, bad act). In this sort
of pragmatic ethics, the ends justify the means — always.

But
unlike utilitarianism — in which all actions are deemed morally
acceptable if they are directed toward achieving the greater good for
the largest number of people — teleological ethics, with its pure moral
objectivism, has a simple tenet: If it's good for you, then it's good.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton and President Obama. And Benghazi.

Something
bad happened that night, Sept. 11, 2012. Something terrible. A U.S.
ambassador and three other Americans were murdered after a group of up
to 150 terrorists descended on the diplomatic compound there, and later a
nearby CIA annex. They came to kill, armed with rocket-propelled
grenades, hand grenades, assault rifles, machine guns and heavy
artillery mounted on trucks. It was a bloodbath.

The White House
refused for weeks to call the assault a "terrorist attack." Instead, the
Obama administration dispatched the U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations, Susan Rice (for some reason), to detail what the White House
"knew." She said on Sept. 16 that the attackers gathered "spontaneously"
at the Benghazi consulate and were "spontaneously inspired" by a
"hateful video."

After dodging for days, the president said on
Sept. 20 that the attack was the culmination of "natural protests that
arose because of the outrage over the video" (a 14-minute film posted on
YouTube — in July 2012). At the United Nations on Sept. 25, he blamed
"a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim
world," saying, "There's no video that justifies an attack on an
embassy."

Meanwhile, on Sept. 12, Mrs. Clinton said the attack was
"a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." The next
day, " the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these
protests in a number of countries." And the next day, at the "Transfer
of Remains" ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, " an awful Internet
video that we had nothing to do with."

But that wasn't true — not even close. They were all lies. And the president and secretary of State knew it.

Courage In America strives to locate news articles that may interest readers. However, while we include stories from sources which we believe to be reliable and credible, we do not write the articles nor do we establish that they are correct. We accept no responsibility for the accuracy or reliability of information provided here and encourage readers to do their own research.